Appeal 2006-3416
Application 10/884,751
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Furst US 6,436,133 B1 Aug. 20, 2002
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 3, 11-14, 17, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Furst.
2. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Furst.
ISSUE
The Appellants contend that the claimed invention is not anticipated by Furst
or rendered obvious by Furst, because Furst fails to disclose any flange (Appeal Br.
4, 8, 9). The Examiner found that Furst discloses first and second flanges as
claimed (Answer 4-5). The issue before us is whether the Appellants have shown
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 11-14, 17, 20, and 21 as anticipated
by Furst and in rejecting claims 18 and 19 as unpatentable over Furst. This issue
turns on whether Furst discloses or suggests first and/or second flanges, as
claimed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013